1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 19

JOHN C. CALHOUN AND THE SECESSION MOVEMENT OF 1850 HERMAN V. AMES

It has been truly said that "state rights apart from sectionalism have never been a serious hinderance to the progress of national unity"; on tbe other band "sectionalism is by its very nature incipient dis- union," as its ultimate goal is political independence for a group of states.' Prior to the Civil War there were numerous instances of the assertion of state rights. Almost every state in the Union at some time declared its own sovereignty but on other occasions denounced as treasonable similar declarations by other states. Only, however, when the doctrine of state rights has been laid hold of as an effective shibboleth by some particular section of the country, to give an appearance of legality to its opposition to measures of the federal government, has the doctrine threatened the integrity of the Union. The great and outstanding sectional movement prior to tbe Civil War, which rallied under the banner of state rights, was due to tbe divergence of interests and views between the North and the South, caused by the growth of the institution of slavery. Indeed the increasing antagonism between the slave and free labor systems and States had revealed itself from time to time even in the first quarter of the Nation's history. Its sectionalizing tendency was realized by the time of the in 1820, and pointed out by several, but especially by Jefferson, when he wrote this oft-quoted passage, "This mo-

•AiiBoii D. Moree in Political Science QuarUrl]/, I, 158. 20 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

mentous question, like a fire bell in the night, a- wakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once tbe knell of the Union. ... A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men will never be obliterated, and every new irritation will make it deeper and deeper."^ Although the tariff was the ostensible reason for the nullification movement in , Calhoun admitted in a private letter in 1830 that it was but "the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised that the peculiar domestic in- stitutions of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil and chmate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relations to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the States, they must in the end be forced to rebel or submit to having their permanent interests sacrificed."^ President Jackson also recognized slavery as the real issue. Following the settlement of the nullifica- tion controversy he wrote to a friend that "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question."* A striking and interesting example of the effect of environment and the sectionalizing movement on the thought and policy of a statesman is revealed in the public career of John C. Calhoun, whose name is more closely identified with state rights doctrines than that of any other public man prior to the Civil War.

*Wrüinge, X, 157. »Cftlboun to Maxey. Sept. 11. 1830. Quoted in Basaett, Jackson. II, 547.

In his early life he was conspicuous for his strong nationalism and his advocacy of a liberal construction of the constitution. John Quincy Adams' contemporary estimate of Calhoun as recorded in his Diary at this period is especially noteworthy. He writes, "He is above all sectional and factional prejudices more than any other statesman of this Union with whom I ever acted. "^ The causes which led to his change of views have been variously ascribed and doubtless always will be subject to discussion. It has been claimed by some of his contemporaries, as well as by some writers of more recent times, that he was led to give up his former views to identify himself with the nuUificationists who had become the dom- inant political party in South Carolina in the late twenties, out of consideration for his future political career and by hia burning ambition to become Presi- dent. While it must be admitted that Calhoun would not have been human if considerations for his political future had not had their weight, and that there is abundant evidence that, like his contempo- raries Clay and Webster, he had a laudable ambition for the Presidency, nevertheless we are loathe to accept the view that such crass and selfish motives could have been the dominating ones in the mind of so great and commanding a character. Rather are we inclined to the opinion already suggested that, as a true son of the South, he was affected by his environment. He became convinced that the econo- mic life of the South was destined to grow increasingly divergent from that of the North, and that the interests identified with and resulting from the institution of slavery would lead to its permanently being in the minority in the general government of the country. He, therefore, was led seriously to consider the means by which the peculiar interests of his section could be safe-guarded, while at the same time the Union, which he loved could be preserved. Hence

^Memoirs, V, 381. 22 American Antiquarian Sodety. [Apr., he laid hold with eagerness upon the doctrine of nullification as the device by which the rights and interests of the minority were to be preserved in the Union. The theory was an attempt to devise a theoretical reconciliation between the most complete state sovereignty and the existence of a general government. Shortly after drafting the South Caro- lina Exposition of 1828, he writes to a private corre- spondent, "Topreserve our Union on the fair basis of equality, on which alone it can stand, and to transmit the blessings of liberty to the remotest posterity is the first great object of all my exertions."^ If this is a correct explanation of Calhoun's reason- ing, we can understand why the doctrine of nullifica- tion appealed to him; first, because it reconciled his devotion to the Union a-s well as to his state and section; and secondly, it enabled him honestly to declare, as he did declare, that it was the great conserving feature of our system of government.' The right of secession, which, since the establishment of the government under the Constitution, had been held from time to time in the North as well as in the South as a theoretical possibility, was reserved by Calhoun's Exposition as a last resort. The acceptance of the view just advanced of Calhoun's motives will go far in explaining his subsequent course. Although he championed south- ern interests, he restrained the radicals of his state and section for nearly two decades longer, until at last he became convinced that the interests of the two sections were so irreconcilable that the Union ought not to be preserved except at the price of specific constitutional concessions.* Apparently, the year 1847 marks the date when Calhoun, alarmed by the aggressiveness of the northern advocates of the

*Ciilhouii'e Corresponde nee, American Historical Astodation Report. 1809, 11,269- 270. 'Calhoun, Works, VI, 50, 123. 'Beverley Tucker's letter, March 25, 1850. William and Mary Quarterly, XVIII, Ab. See pott. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 23

Wilmot Proviso, deemed it high time to arouse the South "to calculate the value of the Union." In a private letter, dated March 19, 1847, he writes, "The time has come when it (the slavery question) must be brought to a final decision."** The part that Calhoun played in the sectional agitation during the next three years, the last of his life, and especially his part in launching and promoting the project for a Southern Convention, as also the history of the movement for such a Convention of the Southern States, which was to demand protection for the rights of that section in the Union, or to concert measures for secession from the Union, is the theme of the remainder of this paper. The idea of a Southern Convention, however, was not new."* It had been proposed as early as 1844, both at the time of the T'exas agitation and in connection with the tariff agitation of that year. The project at that time found considerable support in South Carolina both in the press and with the public, as fiery and radical speeches, resolutions, and toasts threatening disunion testify. The Hon. R. Barnwell Khett, Calhoun's colleague in the United States Senate, especially championed the measure. The movement, however, met with general opposition in the other Southern States and Calhonn and his friends opposed it, favoring a more astute policy and awaiting the results of the Presidential election. The resulting election of Polk led to the abandonment of the project, even by its former advocates. The demand of the North that slavery should be excluded from all the new territory that it was expected would be acquired as a result of the Mexican War revived the sectional issue. Calhoun now takes

•CcirreepondriiRG, 720. See also letter to a member of the Legislature, nenton, Thirty Yeara View, II, 098. "'LouÍ8Íaiui,Febnjftry 20,1837,had proposed one "to determine the best poeejble means toobliiin peaceably if they can, forcibly it they muat, that respect tor their inatitutions to which they are entitled by the enactments of the Federal compact," etc. Act» of Loititiana, 1837, 1», 19. 24 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

the lead. Following the adoption of the by the House of Representatives for the second time, on February 15, 1847, he delivered a speech in the Senate in which he denounced the Proviso and summoned the South to repudiate compromise and stand upon her rights. At the same time he presented a set of resolutions containing a new doctrine that Congress can impose no restriction upon slavery in the territories.'^ They became known as "the Platform of the South." Although these resolutions were not pressed to a vote, the principles underlying them were generally adopted by the southern Democrats, and soon found expression in the resolutions of several of the Southern State legislatures, notably by , which was the first to adopt them.'^ Apparently, Calhoun was fully convinced that it was high time that something should be done to unite the South in order to preserve her interests in the Union. In a private letter of this period he wrote that instead of shunning, we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is our duty due to ourselves, to tbe Union and our political institutions to force the issue on the North."" Partially abandoning his previous policy of re- straining the radicals in South Carolina, he threw himself into the movement to arouse the people. On his return from Washington early in March, he was greeted witb great enthusiasm by the Mayor and Council of Charleston and a mass meeting of the citizens. This meeting, after listening to Calhoun's plea for the union of the South on the slavery issue regardless of party ties, adopted a strong report and resolutions similar to those that be had presented in Congress." »Calhoun, Works, IV, 339-349. »March S, IS47. ACIÊ of Virginia, 184G-47, 236. "Benton, TAiVij/ Years View. II, 69S. »Calhoun's Speech, March 9, 1847, IForts. IV, 382-306; Nile»' Regieler, LXII, 73-76; Calhoun, Correspondence, 718, 720; McMaatar, VII, 486-489, 494-495. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 25

Some both in and out of the State suspected that Calhoun was playing politics." President Polk in particular held this view. Following the former's efforts to secure the signatures of prominent south- erners to an address to the people of the United States on the suhject of slavery and the making of this question a test in the next Presidential election. Polk records his condemnation in his Diary under date of April 6, 1847. "Mr. Calhoun has become perfectly desperate in his aspiration to the Presidency, and has seized upon this sectional question as the only means of sustaining himself in his present fallen condition, and that such an agitation of the slavery question was not only unpatriotic and mischievous, but wicked. I now entertain a worse opinion of Mr. Calhoun than I have ever done before. He is wholly selfish, and I am satisfied has no patriotism. A few years ago he was the author of nullification and threatened to dissolve the Union on account of the tariff. During my administration the reduction of duties which he desired has been obtained, and he can no longer complain. No sooner is this done than he selects slavery upon which to agitate the country, and blindly mounts the topic as a hobby."*' Calhoun's suggestion was not sufficiently encour- aged, so the proposed address was not issued at this time. The presidential campaign of 1848 led to a postponement of the issue. Calhoun endeavored to maintain a neutral position during the contest. His correspondence for the year 1848, however, shows that he was carefully considering the utility of a Southern Convention. In a speech delivered in

te, next puge. "DiVtri,. II, 4.58-^. James H. Hammond writeo to W. G. Simma, Marcb 21, 1847, that he h:ia just ro.id Caihuun's Churleaton speech. Hie objert is to guin SouÜiem vutefl [or himself for President- Every one in S. Carolinn will eee this. It will bi! unid that ho ngitatcB the slavery C4iipation for selfish purpoaea—"South Cnrolinn under present ausiiiceB can do nothing if she puls hereclf foremost but divide the South und insure diaastroua dotoat. " Bammtmd Manuscript, Vol. 13, Library of Congress. For this iind other references to the Hammond eollection, 1 am indebted to Mr. I'hiUpM. Humer, a member of the Graduate School, University of Fennaylvenia. 26 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

Charleston, August 20, he intimated more clearly than in any previous public utterance that the question of southern union and secession might soon be a vital one.''' The press and public meetings throughout the State favored resistance and some urged that South Carolina should take the lead in calling a Southern Convention. As will appear later, Calhoun, while sympathizing with the movement, believed for reasons of expediency it should be initiated in one of the other states, and so he exercised to some extent a restraining infiuence. On the assembling of the legislature in November of 1848, Governor Johnson in his message, while stating that the present time, owing to the election of Taylor, a Southern man as President was not propitious for action, declared that "unity of time and concert of action are indis- pensable to success, and a Southern Convention is the most direct and practical means of obtaining it. "'^ The legislature on December 15, after a visit of Calhoun to Columbia, on his way to Washington,*' unanimously adopted resolutions which were apparent- ly in harmony with his wishes. These declared "that the time for discussion had passed, and that this General Assembly is prepared to co-operate with her sister states in resisting the application of the principles of the Wilmot Proviso to such territory at any and all hazard."^'' On the re-opening of Congress after the election of 1848, Calhoun renewed his effort to secure the issuing of a Southern Address, this time with more success, as the situation in Washington favored his project

"Speech in Charleston, New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, August 28, 1848. ToombB writes Critteoden, September 27, 1847, "Calhoun atands oft too, in ordsr to make & Southern party all hia own on elavöry in the new TerritorieB. Poor old dotiird, to suppose he could get a party now on any terms! Hereafter treachery itself will not trust him." Correspondence of Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb, American Historical Association Report. 1911, II. 129. isNovember 27, 1848, Journal o/ Senate of S. Carolina, 1848, 26; Nile*' LXXIV, 368; Calhoun, Correspondence, 1184. t^Semth Carolina Senate Journal, 1848, 61. "Report and Résolutions of South Carolina, 1848, 147. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 27 inasmuch as the slavery question had re-appeared in Congress in several different measures. The sec- tionalizing effect of the renewed agitation soon revealed itself. As a result of this, and of Calhoun's labors, a gathering of sixty-nine Southern members of Congress, drawn from both parties, assembled on the evening of December 23, 1848, to determine upon a common policy for the South. Calhoun and the radical Democrats directed the movement. It was commonly believed in Washington, wrote Horace Mann, "that Mr. Calhoun was resolved on a dis- solution of the Union. "^^ The attempt was made to unite the representatives of both parties, but it failed of success. President Polk threw the weight of his influence against it. It soon appeared that the Whigs had only entered the conference in order to try to control or defeat the movement.^^ "An Address of the Southern Delegates in Congress to their Con- stituents" was drafted by Calhoun, in which he arraigned the North for their infraction of the Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves and their general course relative to slavery. It denied that Congress had any jurisdiction over slavery in the territories, and it called upon the South to unite, to subordinate party ties, and to prepare to protect itself. "If you become united, " it read, "and prove yourself in earnest, the North will be brought to pause, and to a calculation of consequences; and that may lead to a change of measures and to the adoption of a course of policy tbat may quietly and peaceably terminate this long conflict between the two sections. If it should not, nothing would remain for you but to stand up immovably in defence of rights involving your all, your property, prosperity, equality, liberty, and safety.""

*)Lt/e and Work» of Hitraee Mann, 273. "Sec Lettera of Toombu to John J. Crittenden, Amtrrican HislorieaX Attoeialion Re- port, 1911. II. 139, 141. »Calhoun. Work», VI, 290-313; Nile», LXXV, 84-88. 28 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

But the Whigs were not prepared to abandon their party affiliations. As Toombs wrote Crittenden, "We had a regular flare up in the last meeting, and at the call of Calhoun I told them briefly what we were at. I told him (Calhoun) that the union of the South was neither possible nor desirable until we were ready to dissolve the Union. That we certainly did not intend to advise the people now to look any where else than to their own government for the prevention of apprehended evils. "^^ Alexander H. Stephens tried to prevent action by the caucus, but failed in this. An attempt to substitute an address drawn by Senator Berrien, directed to the "People of the whole Country" and appealing to the patriotism and fairness of the North, failed by a small margin" and the Calhoun Address slightly modified was adopted and issued on January 22, 1849, but only two Whigs were numbered among its forty-eight signers. Only about one third of the southern repre- sentatives signed. Owing to the attitude of the Whigs, the effect of the address was greatly weakened. In fact Toombs declared "We have completely foiled Calhoun in his miserable attempt to form a Southern Party. "=" Calhoun, however, in a letter to his daughter two days after the Address was issued, expressed satis- faction. He writes, "My address was adopted by a decided majority. ... It is a decided triumph under the circumstances. The administration threw all its weight against us, and added it to the most rabid of the Whigs The South is more aroused than I ever saw it on the subject."" Polk's Diary bears out Calhoun's statement of the admin- istration's hostihty to their movement. The Presi- dent records an interview with Calhoun on January

«Coleman, Life of John J. Critlsnden, I, 335-336, ^NiUs, LXXV, 1Ü1-I04. «Coleman, CrílUnden, I, 335. "Corre*ponditie«, 762. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 29 16, 1840, and notes, "He (Calhoun) proposed no plan of adjusting the difficulty (territorial), but insisted that the aggression of the North upon the South should be resisted and that the time bad conie for action. I became perfectly satisfied that he did not desire that Congress should settle the question at the present session and that he desired to influence the North upon the subject, whether from personal or patriotic views it is not difficult to determine. I was firm and decided in my conversation with him, intending to let him understand distinctly that I gave no countenance to any movement which tended to violence or the disunion of the states."" Just before the final meeting of the caucus, Polk was so disturbed that he conferred with his Cabinet on tbe matter and informed them that he "thought it was wholly unjustifiable for southern members of Congress, when a fair prospect was presented of settling the whole question, to withhold their co- operation, and instead of aiding in effecting such an adjustment, to be meeting in a sectional caucus and publishing an address to influence the country. "I added," he records, "that I feared there were a few southern men who had become so excited that they were indifferent to the preservation of the Union." "I stated that I put my face alike against southern agitators and northern fanatics and should do everything in my power to allay excitement by adjusting the question of slavery and preserving the Union. "=" It was agreed that each member of the Cabinet should be active in seeing members of Congress, and urge them to support the bill to admit California at once as a state. Polk promised to use his influence with members, and records in his Diary: —"This is an unusual step for the Executive to take, but the emergency demands it. It may be the only means of allaying a fearful sectional excitement and

t*Diarv. IV, 288. "Diari/, IV, 299. 30 American Antiquarian Society, [Apr. of preserving the Union, and therefore I think upon high public consideration it is justified."^* Through the administration's influence, some of the Democrats jomed the southern Whigs in refusing to support the address, yet the South Carolina legis- lature, as previously stated, had declared that it was prepared to co-operate with other Southern btates m resisting the extension of the Wilmot Proviso to the new territory. In the course of the next few weeks, the Democratic legislatures in Virginia, and Missouri adopted resolutions of similar tenor' and even the Whig legislature of North Carolina joined in denouncing the proposed restrictive legisla- tion and suggested the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the new territory.^^ Virginia took more radical action by providing for a special session of the legislature, should Congress pass the obnoxious laws. In several of the other states, although there was no legislative action, there was a renewal of popular agitation. While the sentiment m both and Alabama was divided on the Southern Address, the Wilmot Proviso was emphati- cally condemned by both political parties. In Georgia, Governor Town, who had declared himself in favor of resisting the Wilmot Proviso to the limit, was re- elected, and the Democrats gained control of the legislature for the first time in several years. In Alabama the Democrats also made substantial gains. Moreover, , as we shall presently see took up with zeal the proposal for the Southern Convention. Calhoun had not ventured in the "Address of the Southern Delegates" to explicitly propose a Southern Convention, but we know he had entertained the possibility of one for some time. More than a year previously he had stated in a confidential letter that

'•»Diary. IV, 300. *>SenaU Misc.. 30 Congress, 2 »esiior,. I, NOB. 48, 51, II, Noa. 54. ß8; Senatt MUe . 31 Congress, 1 Kêeion. I, No, 2i. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 31 such a Convention was "indispensable."^^ Within a few weeks after the southern caucus, his personal correspondence to political friends in several states shows that he was actively, although quietly, urging the idea of a southern Convention and outlining the plan of action. Thus we find him writing to John H. Means, shortly afterward chosen Governor of South Carolina. "I am of the impression that the time is near at hand when the South will have to choose between disunion and submission. I think so, because I see little prospect of arresting the aggression of the North. If any thing can do it, it would be for the South to present with an unbroken front to the North the alternative of dissolving the partnership or of ceasing on their part to violate our rights. . . . But it will be impossible to present such a front, except by means of a Convention of Southern States. That, and that only could speak for the whole, and present authoritatively to the North the alternative, which to choose. If such a presentation should fail to save the Union, by arresting the aggression of the North and causing our rights and the stipulation of the Constitution in our favor to be respected, it would afford proof conclusive that it could not be saved, and that nothing was left us, but to save ourselves. Having done all we could to save the Union, we would then stand justified before God and man to dissolve a partnership which had proved inconsistent with our safety, and, of course, destructive of the object which mainly induced us to enter into it. Viewed in this light, a Convention of the South is an indis- pensable means to discharge a great duty we owe to our partners in the Union: that is, to warn them in the most solemn manner that if they do not desist from aggressions and cease to disregard our rights and stipulations of the Constitution, the duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity would compel ua

«Benton, Tkirtv Year» View, II, 698-700. Utter of Wilson Lumkin to November 18, 1847. Correspondence, 1135-1139. 32 American Antiquarian Sodety. [Apr., to dissolve forever the partnership with them. But should its warning voice fail to save the Union, it would in tbat case prove the most efficient of all means for saving ourselves, "^^ Scarcely more than a month after this letter was written, in accordance with a plan privately suggested by Calhoun, and publicly favored by district and parish meetings in various parts of South Carolina, a Convention of delegates assembled at Columbia, May 14-15, 1849. After approving the Southern Address and the action of the state government, it called for a special session of the legislature to taJie action in case any of the proposed obnoxious legis- lation should be passed by Congress, This Convention also appointed five prominent men as a Central Com- mittee of Vigilance and Safety to correspond with the other states to promote concert of action, and to perfect the organization of the state—thus fully accepting Calhoun's program.^^ It was desired, however, that some state other than South Carolina should take the lead, Miss- issippi was the first to respond under the stimulus of Mr. Calhoun's letters.^^ In May, 1849, an in- formal meeting of prominent citizens was held at Jackson to protest against southern exclusion from the territories. This gathering issued a call for the voters of the several counties to choose delegates to a State Convention to be held at Jackson in October "to consider the threatening relations between the North and the South." A copy of their resolutions was_ sent to Mr. Calhoun with the request that he advise the promoters of the movement the proper course for the Convention to take. Calhoun replied in a letter addressed to Col. C. S. Tarpley, dated July 9, 1849, outlining the course that it was desirable

"Calhoun to John H. Means. Correepondener., 785, 766. '»National Era. May 24. 1849. National InUlligencer, May 24 and 26, 1849, "D. T. Herndon in Alabama Hist. Society Transaition». V, 204-208; Cleo Hearon in Publication» of His». Hist. Society, XIV, ch. II and III. 1918.] John C, Calhoun and Secession. 33 to take. His letter was in part as follows:"" "Ia my opinion there is but one thing that holds out the promise of saving both ourselves and the Union: and that is a Southern Convention; and that, if much longer delayed, cannot. It ought to have been held this fall, and ought not to be delayed beyond another year; all our movements ought to look to that result. For that purpose every southern state ought to be organized, with a central committee and one in each county. Ours is already. It is indis- pensable to produce concert and prompt action. In the meantime, firm and resolute resolutions ought to be adopted by yours and such meetings as may take place before the assembling of the legislature in the fall. They, when they meet, ought to take up the subject in the most solemn and impressive manner. "The great object of a Southern Convention should be, to put forth in a solemn manner the causes of our grievances in an address to other states, and to admonish them, in a solemn manner, of the conse- quences which must follow, if they should not be redressed, and to take measures preparatory to it, in case they should not be. The call should be addressed to all those who are desirous to save the Union and our institutions, and who, in the alter- native, should it be forced on us, of submission or dissolving the partnership, would prefer the latter. No state could better take the lead in this great conservative movement than yours. " Calhoun wrote a similar letter to Senator Henry S. Foote, August 2, 1849," to which Foote replied a few days before the Mississippi Convention met, stating, "I am gratified to have it within my power to inform you that several leading gentlemen of both the two great political parties in Mississippi have promised me at

**"Tke Southron." Jackson, Miss., published Mr. CaIhoun*B letter Mny 24, 1860. Copieil in Naiional Daily IrUtUigencer, June 4, 1850, also Cnng. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 «««•, Appendix 52. "National Era, June 12, 1851. 34 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr., our approaching convention to act upon your sug- gestion relative to the recommendation of a Southern Convention. "^^ His suggestions were explicitly followed. The State formally took the lead, a central committee was organized and local committees were appointed in the counties, "firm and determined resolutions" were adopted by the October Convention. These condemned the policy of Congress, and appointed a committee of seven which issued "An Address to the Southern States," inviting them to send delegates to a Convention to be held at Nashville, June 3, 1850, "with the view and the hope of arresting the course of aggression, and, if not practicable then to concen- trate the South in will and understanding, and action," "and as the possible ultimate resort the call by the legislatures of the assailed States of still more solemn Conventions,—to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sovereign power of the people. Should, in the result, such Conventions be called and held, they may look to a like regularly constituted con- vention of all the assailed States, to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare, by the formation of a compact and a union that will afford protection to their liberties and their rights. "^^ Calhoun's connection with the movement was not generally known but was suspected.^" Following "Letter of September 25, lKiS), Calhoun, Correspondence, 1204. See also lett«r from A. Hutchina'.)!! to Calhoun ot Octolier 5, 1849, Ibid, 1208. "Foraddrf«8and resolutions, Congressional Globe, 31, Cong. I, Sees., I, 578, 579, 942. "Senator Foote in a B[jecch February 8, 1S50, denied that the Mississippi movement was instigated by South Carolina. Congregnonal Globe. 31 CoTig. 1 sfSs. Appendix 100. In December, 1851, however, he arknowtedged "that it wiia throueh me, in the first instance that Mr. Calhoun succeeded in instigoting the incipient movement in Miaaiaaippii which led to the Cftlline of th« Noshville Convention." Ibid, 32 Cong. 1 tesa. Apli^idix, :Í'¿, A few days later he stated that he had not known et Mr. Calhoun'e letter to Mr. Tiirpley and to others until recently, and added "the letters that I have seen, according Eenerally with thia one (Tiirr>ley) SHtisfied my mind that the modus operandi of tho Convention was more or lesa marked out by his great intellect. " Cong. Globe,-¿2 Cong. I sens, 134-135. Daniel Wallace -was sent by Governor Sewbrook of South Carolina as a special agent to attend the Misaissipjji Convention. In )i confidential letter he reporta thiit he noted there tbe influence of "our own oldstiitesman." (Calhoun). See Report of D. Wallace, Special Agent from South Carolina to Missiasippi, in collection of letters of W. B. Sea- brook in the Library of Congreaa. For Wallace's denial that he waa an fiRent of South Carolina, see references cited by A. C. Cole. The South and the Right of Secession, ia Miaaiesippi Valley Historical Review, I, 377, note 2. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 35 his speech in Congress, March 4, 1850, just before his death, it was asserted. Thus the Fayetteville, (N. C.) Observer declared: "The proposition to hold such a convention was first authoritatively made in Mississippi. But we presume nobody is so green as to imagine that it originated there. No, we have no shadow of doubt that the action of Mississippi was prompted from South Carolina, and now in Mr. Calhoun's speech we have a revelation of the purpose for which the Convention is to assemble. It is to demand impracticable and impossible con- cessions, with no hope of their being granted, and with a purpose and declaration that if not granted the South will secede from the Union." His letter to Colonel Tarpley was not made public until after his death, shortly before the assembling of the Nashville Convention. Calhoun followed the progress of events with great interest and urged his correspondents in Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina to see that their states supported the Mississippi movement.''^ He writes James H. Hammond, "As to myself, I lose no oppor- tunity, when I can act with propriety, to give the great cause an impulse I have made it a point to throw off no one. Let us be one is my advice to all parties in the South The time for action has come. If the South is to be saved, now is the time.'"'^ His own State Government was the first to respond. Governor Seabrook's message to the legislature, when it assembled the last of November (1849) reviewed the slavery agitation. He predicted that "the enactment of any one of the contemplated measures of hostility would probably, if not certainly, result in severing the political ties that now unite us the South has at last been aroused from

"CoT-respimdenee, 762, 769, 773, 775, 77S. Letters to Calhoun, Ibid. 11Ö5, 1196, 1199-1202, 1210-1212. "Letter of January 4, 1850, Correspondence. 779. 36 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr., its criminal lethargy to a knowledge of the dangers of its position. For the first time in our political history, party affinities are becoming merged in the high obligation of co-operation for the sake of safety, or for participation in a common fate." He con- cluded by recommending the Southern Convention as proposed by the people of Mississippi. This recommendation was endorsed by the legislature, meeting as a caucus, December 12, 1849, and the election of delegates was provided for." They also adopted the measures recommended by the May Convention. Calhoun's fondest hope for the union of the men of the South of both political parties seemed about to be realized. Whigs vied with Democrats in declaring that southern rights were in universal danger, and that only a united and bold front would prevent the enactment of measures that would force the disruption of the Union. Southern men and the southern press were even seriously considering the value of the Union and the advantages of its dis- solution. On the assembling of Congress in December of 1849, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, a leading southern Whig wrote "I find the feeling among the southern members for a dissolution of the Union— if the anti-slavery measures should be pressed to extremity—is becoming more general than at first. Men are now beginning to talk of it seriously, who, twelve months ago, hardly permitted themselves to think of it."^^ Calhoun a little later wrote, "The southern members are more determined and bold than I ever saw them. Many avow themselves to be disunionists, and a still greater number admit that there is little hope for any remedy short of it."*^

"Tke Tri-Weeklv South Carolinian, December 8, 1S49. «Johnflon nnd Brown, Life of Alexander H. Stephenê, 239. «January 12, 1850, Calhoun, Correspondí it c«, 780, also December 8, 31, 1849; Ibid, 776, 778. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 37

Similar opinions were expressed in many southern papers. The Richmond Enquirer of February 12 declared, "The two great political parties of the country have ceased to exist in the Southern States, 80 far as the present slavery issue is concerned. United they will prepare, consult, combine, for prompt and decisive action. With united voices—we are compelled to make a few exceptions—they proclaim, in the language of the Virginia resolution, passed a day since, the preservation of the Union if we can, the preservation of our own rights if we cannot. This is the temper of the South; this is the temper becoming the inheritors of rights acquired for freemen by the hand of freemen. 'Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther,* or else the proud waves of Northern aggression shall float the wreck of the Constitution."" A communication in the Columbia (S. C.) Telegraph, February 15, 1850, reads: "My idea is, first, to perfect the Union of the South, now so happily in progress. A year ago I thought the South was doomed, it seemed so dead to the true situation, mouthing after the lessons of miserable demagogues the sounding devices of party. But that day is past. There are no more Whigs, no more Democrats —there is but one party, 'The party of the South.' The South is aroused, her banner is on the outer wall, and the cry is still 'they come, they come,' 'Let tlie good work go on.' Second, to dissolve the Union immediately, form a Southern Confederacy, and the possession by force of most of all the territories suitable for slavery, which would include all south of the northern latitude of Missouri."" Even The Richmond Re-publican, a conservative Whig paper, said editorially, "We are afraid these men will find the South is in earnest when it is too late It is melancholy to contemplate such a state of things; for whatever Northern citizens

«Quoted in National Iraelligencee, February 16, 1850. «Quoted in National Intnlligeneer, February 21, 1850. 38 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

may believe, or affect to believe, every Southern man knows that to persist in those measures which form the principal point of Northern policy upon the subject of slavery, will result in a dissolution of the Union. "^8 , a Whig representative from Geor- gia, wrote "When I came to Washington, I found the whole Whig party expecting to pass the Proviso, and Taylor would not veto it .... I saw Ceneral Taylor, and talked fully with him, and while he stated he had given and would give no pledges either way about the Proviso, he gave me clearly to under- stand that if it was passed he would sign it. My course instantly became fixed. I would not hesitate to oppose the Proviso, even to the extent of a dis- solution of the Union. "^^ He, therefore, believed that the Whigs should join with the southern Demo- crats in presenting a determined resistance to this obnoxious measure. Stephens's letters from December to early in February show a similar determination as well as despair of the preservation of the Union. Thus he writes his brother on January 21: "I see no hope to the South from the Union. I do not believe much in resolutions, anyway. I am a good deal like Troup in this particular. If I were now in the legislature, I should introduce bills reorganizing the militia, for the establishment of a military school the encouragement of the formation of volunteer companies, the creation of arsenals, of an armory, and an establishment for making gunpowder. In these lies our defence. I tel! you the argument is exhausted, and if the South does not intend to be overrun with anti-slavery doctrines, they must, before no distant day, stand by their arms. My mind is made up; I am for the fight, if the country will back me. And if not, we had better have no 'Resolutions'

'•Quoted in National InteUigenceT, February 2, 1851). «•Coleman, Life of John J. CHUenden, 365, letter dated April 25,1850. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 39 and no gasconade. They will but add to our degrada- tion."^" The National Intelligencer, a Whig paper published in Washington, in the leading editorial February 2, entitled, "The Evil of the Day," confirmed this view of the attitude of the southern Whigs. "What is most alarn:iing of all," it declared, "is the fact that gentlemen who have ever heretofore been most conservative and even thoroughly Whig, are to be found still more excited than those who have been habitually railcrs against the North, and under- valuers of the Union." In the meantime the movement for the Nashville Convention was taken up in the other southern legislatures as they assembled. The legislatures of Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, , and voted respectively that their states would be represented, but not without opposition in some states, and considerable difference of opinion in regard to the methods to be employed for the choice of delegates. In general, the Whigs desired election by the people, the Democrats by the legislature. As a result there were a variety of methods adopted. In some states all the delegates were chosen by the legislature, in others a part were so chosen to represent the state at large, and the remainder by the district system. In a few states, where the choice was left to the people it resulted in only a partial representa- tion as was true of Virginia, Texas, and Arkansas. The legislature of , and several of the border states refused to indorse the Convention, and from only one of these, Tennessee, were any repre- sentatives present at Nashville." Four of the state legislatures, namely, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia also authorized the calling of a state Convention in case the Wilmot Proviso or similar

"Johnson and Brown, Slephenê, 245. See also letter of February 13, 1850 to Saa. Thomaa, Amtriean IHsl. A»»oc. Report, 1011, II. 184. "Cole, The Whig Party in the SoiUk, 158-162, 170-171. D. T. Herndon. The Naoh- villo Convention of 1850, in Tranaaetion» of the Alabama Hittoricai Socieiv. V, 213-216. 40 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

obnoxious measures were adopted by Congress. Mississippi added an appropriation of $220,000 as a contingency fund. From the moment of the introduction of Clay's resolutions, the southern Whig sentiment began to change, and it was soon evident that the majority of their numbers were ready to accept the admission of California, if the Wilmot Proviso was not applied to the rest of the . It was otherwise with the southern Democrats. On the 4th of March, Calhoun's speech, the last great effort of his life, was presented to the Senate." The scene was a dramatic one. The knowledge that the veteran statesman and great champion of southern rights was to emerge from his sick room to present his views on the crisis of the hour was sufficient to crowd the Senate Cham- ber. Too ill to deliver the speech himself, it was read by Senator Mason of Virginia. Calhoun, pale and emaciated sat with eyes partially closed, listening to the delivery of his last appeal and solemn warning. "A sombre hue pervaded the whole speech," wrote Senator Cass. It was, indeed, clear that the author, conscious of his approaching end, was oppressed with anxious forebodings of the dis- ruption of the Union. He declared that the Com- promise proposed could not save the Union. This could be done only by the North giving to the South equal rights in the territories, by ceasing to agitate the slavery question and by consenting to an amend- ment to the Constitution which would restore to the South the power to protect herself. The amendment as explained in a posthumous essay provided for the election of two Pre.sidents, one from each section, each to have a veto on all legislation.^^ This extreme demand did not command the support of the southern Whigs, and Webster's "Seventh of March Speech" did much to reassure them,^^ and the

"Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., I, Í5I-Í55; Work», IV, ß42-573. "A Discourse on the Constitution and Oozemmenl of ihe United Stutes. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 41 southern press in general applauded it; while many condemned Calhoun's remedy as impracticable. Thus the Virginia Free Press declares: "The necessity of the Convention, if it ever existed is now at an end. .... Since the delivery of Mr. Webster's speech the great body of the people feel a confidence that the agitating and exciting question of the day will be amicably settled and the clouds which lately lowered so darkly over the Union will be dispelled.^^ Even the radical Charleston Mercury says: "With such a spirit as Mr, Webster has shown, it no longer seems impossible to bring this sectional contest to a close, and we feel now, or the first time since Congress met, a hope that it may be adjusted.^"^ The New Orleans Bee declared that "the public sentiment of nine-tenths of the people of the South will rebuke the opinion of Mr. Calhoun and stamp it as calumny upon the slave holding part of the community."" The change in the attitude of the press in regard to the Nashville Convention was general, but particu- larly marked in the case of the Whig papers. The Wilmington Chronicle states that of sixty papers from ten slave-holding states from Maryland to Louisiana, not more than one quarter take decided ground for a Southern Convention. "The rest are either strongly opposed to it, doubt its utility or are silent on the subject. "^^ The Jackson (Mississippi) Southron had at first supported the movement, but by March it had grown luke-warm and before the Convention assembled, decidedly opposed to it. The last of May it said, "not a Whig paper in the

. I. 1S8. **National Intelligencer, Mnrcb 18 and 23. "Ibid. ^'National InteHigenceT, March 11, "National InteUignnrer, March 19. 42 American Antiquarian Sodety. [Apr., state approves. "^^ The Savannah Republican early in the year seemed to be in doubt what course to recommend; by the latter part of March it had grown fearful "that evil men may use it for their own purposes," especially so since Calhoun's speech. By the end of May it pronounces against such a sectional assembly pending the action of Congress."" On the other hand leading Democrats and several of the influential party papers tried to check the rising tide of union sentiment and to urge the Con- vention forward. A meeting of southern Senators was held in Washington on April lGth, at which all except four were present. They unanimously recog- nized the importance of the Convention being held." The Columbus Sentinel (Georgia) declared "Let the Convention be held and let the undivided voice of the South go forth, .... from the deliberations of that Convention, declaring our determination to resist even to civil war, and we shall then and not till then hope for a respectful recognition of our equality and rights. "^^ In South Carolina many declared openly in favor of secession. Thus the Fairñeld Herald of May 1 states its views: "The time for the Southern Con- vention is nigh at hand, and with its approach con- flicting opinions harass the mind. The question has been frequently asked, with all seriousness, what will be the probable action of the Convention? We have hoped, and we still desire, that the Convention will assume a decided position and declare to the North that there is a line established beyond which, if they dare trespass, a revolution shall be the consequence. Further than this, we anxiously pray that the Con- vention may entertain the proposition of the formation of a Southern Confederacy. The Union, as it now

"Compare Southron, September 21, October 5, 1849, March 11, 15, 22, April 5, 19, May 24, 31. June 7. i860. »"Savannah Republican. March 21. 22, May 20. 1850. "Montgomery Adaertiier, Apriî 16, 1850. "National Intelligencer, March 11. lois.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 43 exists, has proved a curse and not a blessing. It has been made the means of catering to northern taste and inclinations, robbing from the southern planter his pittance to pander to the craving pro- pensities of northern leeches. In the language of the Wilmington Aurora (which we unhesitatingly endorse) we would say to our delegates, who will shortly leave for the Convention, if they intend to furnish us with barren addresses merely, they had better stay at home. "*^ Such utterances as these led several of the Whig delegates who had been chosen to the Convention, especially in Georgia, to decline to attend on the ground that the movement had not the support of the people as shown by the small vote cast, and because they were opposed to anything looking toward disunion." "They saw," said the Southron, "that South Carolina and portions of the loco foco party in other states were determined to press the consideration at the Nashville Convention the pro- priety of the treasonable project of disunion."^ Some of the Whigs, however, decided to attend to prevent extreme measures. William M. Murphy, one of the delegates at large from Alabama, published an open letter stating his reasons. "It is said that the object of the Convention is to dissolve the Union; if this be true no earthly power should prevent my attendance—to prevent that awful calamity. "^^ Chief Justice Sharkey and the Mississippi Whigs, however, attended, and the former both before the Convention met, ^^ and in his speech from the Presi- dent's chair in that body, denied that the object of the originator.-; of the movement was to dissolve the Union but to obtain relief from the "violations of the Constitution which the North had made."

"National IntelHçeneir. March 10, 1850. "ATo/ionoi/nie/iipencer, June 1850. Esperinlly letter of Ei-Represeníative Jaa.-A Mcriweathcr of Georgin. Augusta Chronicle quoted in National Inletligcneer, May 7, 1S50. Samnnah Republican, quoted in Philadeliihia Pi/6iic Ledger, April 2, 1850. "Jackson SouihTon, May 31. 44- American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

"The Convention had not been called to prevent, but to perpetuate union. "^^ As we have seen, Calhoun was largely responsible for the assembling of the Southern Convention, and it is apparent that he had hoped to guide its pro- ceedings. Indeed he had suggested, as late as the middle of February, that "at least two members from each of the delegations should visit Washington on their way to Nashville, in order to consult fully with the members from the South that are true to her. "^^ Had he lived doubtless he would have exercised great influence in directing its work." From his correspondence of the last few months of his life, as well as from art'cles in papers inspired by him, we are able to form an excellent idea of what he hoped the Convention would accomplish. In a letter to the editor of his organ the South Carolinian, Calhoun wrote early in the winter that "the great object of the Convention is to make a solemn state- ment of the wrongs of the South and to appeal to the North to desist. Further, in case the latter should refuse to alter its course, to devise some means of action. "^^ It is probable that he intended the Convention to embody in its demands the indis- pensable guarantees that he had presented in his last speech in Congress. This was the view taken by Senator Foote, who the day following the pre- sentation of Calhoun's speech protested in the Senate against the demand for amendments to the Constitu- tion as a sine qua non on the part of the South. Calhoun immediately replied disclaiming having said anything about a sine qua non but added, "I will

"Montgomery Alahamn Journal, May 22. "Letter of April 4 in National InUtUgencer. April 27. Senator Foote in a speech February 14, 1S50, stated a BÍmilar view. Cong. Olobe, 31 Cong. 1 Se»*., I, 369. •Wew York Tribune, June 24, 1850. "Correspondence, 7S2. "Hammond wrote him March 5, 1850, "You must be there with your full power," Correspondence, 1212. liSoutk Carolina Tríweeklv, May 25, 1850. 1918.] John C, Calhoun and Secession. 45 say—and I say it boldly—for I am not afraid to say the truth on any question, that as things now stand, the Southern States can not with safety remain in the Union."« In his last letter, dated March 10, Calhoun wrote, "Nothing short of the terms I propose can settle it finally and permanently. Indeed it is difficult to see how two peoples so different and hostile can exist together in one common Union. "^^ Judge Beverly Tucker of Virginia, an ardent secessionist, evidently believed that Calhoun had at last made up his mind that secession was inevitable. On March 25, 1850, he wrote his nephew, "That the action of South Carolina will be determined is abso- lutely sure. She has been held in check by Caihoun for seventeen years. Seeing now no room between him and the grave for any ambitious career, he for the first time looks on the subject with a single eye, and his late speech does but give utterance to what has been in his mind and in the mind of every man in that State during this time. "^*

nCongreêstonal Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess.. I. 462-403. In December, 1851, Foote stated in a speech that" I am now perfectly certsin that it wna the intention of himself (Calhoun) and a few othera oloscly asaociated with him to wield,.i8 fur ns they might find it in their power to do BO, nil thn machinery of the Niisbviile Convention for the purpose of settina up demiinda in favor of the Southern States alike unjiiat nnd unreiiaonublc in theitiselves —a oompliimee with which they could not have eonßdently expected. I enlertuin no doubt niso, at this lime that he contemplated the breaking up of the Confederacy ns more than a probable event, and ona to which he began to look forward with a good deal of ea«crneaa." Cong. Globe. 32 Cong., 1 »ess. Appendix, 51. For Rhetls denial Bee Ibid. 61. The correspondence ot Judge Beverly Tucker oí Virginia to Ei-Govemor Jaa. H. Hammond of South Carolina, both of whom were delegates to the Niiahville Convention, during the spring nf 1830, shows tbat tbere were those who wiahed to une tbe Convention, to force aecesaion. Tucker desired thiit demanda should be made on tbe North that should be so extreme that tbey would not be accepted. See Tucker's letters of ,Innuary 27. February 8. 1850, in Jas. H. Hammond Manuscripts. Vol. 17, Library of Congreas. ^Correspondence. 7S4. ''^William and Mary Quarterly, XVIII, 44-46. Tucker wrote Ex-Governor Hammord May 7, 1S50, Calhoun "died nobly, and his l»st act redeems nil the errors of his life ... .1 have heard of thoae who rejoieed in hia death as providential. I hope it may prove BO, but not in the way intended by them. They considered him ns the moving cause of excitement in South Carolina. You and I know that he reatrained it »nd re- strained himself. When he went home in March 1833, he w;i8 prepared to suy all that he asid ¡n hia laat speech and much more, had others been prepared to hear it. I know it from hia own lipa." Hammond Manuscript, Vol. 17. 46 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr.,

It would seem that Calhoun was now almost convinced that secession was a necessary measure, but apparently hoped to the last for the preservation of the Union on the terms he had proposed. A few days before his death he dictated an incomplete draft of certain resolutions on the territorial question then at issue.'^ These were directed chiefiy against the admission of California under the proposed constitution. It characterized the suggested action as more objectionable than the Wilmot Proviso because "it would effect indirectly and surreptitiously what tbe proviso proposes to effect openly and directly."^^ The series concluded as follows:—"Re- solved, "That the time has arrived when the said Southern States owe it to themselves and tlte other States comprising the Union, to settle fully and forever all the questions at issue." Calhoun may have intended this draft for use in the Senate or more probably for the Nashville Convention, but they do not seem to have influenced the text of the resolutions adopted by the latter body." His death, occuring two months prior to its meeting left the shaping of the course of the Convention to other and less skilful hands. Owing to the developments in Congress, the move- ment for the Convention lost importance and support in the South, and the assembling of its members on the 3rd of June aroused little interest in the North as its action had been discounted. Representatives from nine states were present. The body being composed of seventy-five members from eight states, and one hundred from Tennessee. The Convention was organized with the choice of Judge Sharkey aa President. He made a pacific speech, but it probably

» Correspondence, 785-787. "A similar view in his letter of January 4, 1850, Calhoun, Correspondencr, 779-780. "Joseph A. Scoville, wrote Jumea H, Hammond, April 18. 1850, aa follows:—"Mr. Calhoun commenced dictating some resolutions a few days before he died—he did not finish them, whether he intended them for the Senate or lor Nashville, I never knew." Hammond Manuscript, Vol. 17. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 47 did not express the attitude of the majority of the delegates. A Committee on Resolutions consisting of two from each state reported a series of resolutions based on those presented by John A. Campbell of Alabama, afterward Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, which were adopted unanimously on a vote by states. These were rather moderate in character. In fact Colquitt of Georgia character- ized them as "tame." The resolutions condemned the Wilmot Proviso and the other proposed hostile measures, omitting all mention of the admission of California. They demanded the extension of the Missouri Compromise Une to the Pacific. This was pronounced "as an extreme concession" and soon came to be regarded as the ultimatum of the Conven- tion. They declined "to discuss the methods suitable for resistance to measures not yet adopted, which might involve a dishonor to the South," and voted to re-convene six weeks after the adjournment of Congress, in case it failed to comply with its de- mands.'^ An address to the people of the Southern States, prepared by R. Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, was also reported and aroused much discussion. It was far more radical than the resolutions, com- prising the "choicest specimens of disunion tenets," as one of the southern Whig papers remarked." The Southron declared that neither Calhoun, Hayne nor McDuiFie, "even in the palmiest days of ultra nullification, ever conceived anything to surpass it. "^^ The address denounced expressly the Compromise

^»Journal of Proceedings of the Southern Convenliim, 3-8. See S. L. Siouesat, Ten- nesgeo, Tho Compromise oí 1850 and the Nushville Convention, in the Mississippi Valley Historical Retiew, II, 330-340. 343-34(1. for excellent account of the proceedings of the two aessiona of the Convention. T. D. Hprndon. The Nsahville Convention of 18riO, in Alabama Historical Soeirtj/, Transactions V, 2)6-233. Cleo. Hearon, Miaaia- sippi and Tho ,in PutíicofíOTí« of Mississippi Hislorieat Socitiy, XIV, ch. VI. Fiirritr Newberry, The Nashville Convention and Southern Sentiment of 1850, South Atlantic Quarterly, XI. 259-273. "Southron, June 28. »"Southron, Juno 28. 48 American Antiquarian Society, [Apr., measures pending in Congress and expressed the belief that sooner or later disunion must come. An earnest attempt was made by the Whigs and a few conservative Democrats to strike out this section, and especially the statement in the address that it would be unconstitutional to admit California. A number of strong speeches were made in opposition to this portion of the address. Beverly Tucker, Professor of Law in the College of William and Mary, however, made a fiery speech in favor of secession.*^ The address was carried by a unanimous vote by states, but on motion the votes of each member were recorded, and from that it appeared that the Whigs were opposed, while most of the Democrats supported it.^^ After a session of nine days, the first session of the Convention adjourned on June 12th. The North by this time, refused to take the Convention seriously. A Philadelphia paper declared, "the prospect is that the members have each made good an excellent claim to ridicule for life."^^ The South, however, regarded it quite differently. The Whigs generally repudiated it, agreeing with The Republican Banner and Nash- ville Whig that the spirit of the Convention and the propositions discussed savor so strongly of disunion that every friend of the Republic must feel that its perpetuity is threatened. "^^ On the other hand, the Democrats and Democratic press praised its work and influence. We are convinced that a careful study of the Southern Convention movement must lead to the conclusion that it was of much greater importance and a more serious menace to the Union than has been generally recognized by many historians. Mr.

"Remarles of Beverly Tucker, Southern Convention, 16 pages, n. d. Copy in Virginia State Library. "Repxibliean Banner and Nashville Whig, June 12,13, 14, 16. This paper said July 4, "only some dozen or fifteeo Whigs to some «ighty Democrats." *'Nortk American, quoted Ly National Intelligencer, Juoe 20. "June !7. 1918.] John C. Calhoun and Secession. 49

Rhodes states that "the Nashville Convention de- serves mention more from the hopes and fears it had excited than from its active or enduring effects.^* Wliile this is true, it is also true, as he points out in another passage "that had the Wilmot Proviso passed Congress, or had slavery been abolished in the District of Columbia, the Southern Convention .... would have been a very different affair, from the one that actually assembled at Nashville."^' This, it is believed, is apparent from the facts that have been presented. The South, it is clear, would have been united without distinction of party against any such measures. Their various legislative resolutions against the Wilmot Proviso, for example, were not mere gasconade, but represented a deep- seated spirit of resistance that undoubtedly would have led to bold and concerted measures to disrupt the Union and to the formation of a Southern Con- federacy. But this movement, for the time being, was checked by the passage of the Compromise measures. While it is undoubtedly true that the project for a Southern Convention and the threat of secession was largely a movement of the politicians rather than one emanating from the people, it is equally true that the Compromise of 1850 was the work of politicians, which was soon to be rejected by the people of both sections. Even at the adjournment of Congress it was not certain that the lower South would accept the Compromise. The Nashville Convention, less representative than when it met in June, convened for a second session from November 11 to 19, 1850. All the delegates who accepted the Compromise measures were absent. The extremists being in control, after a series of disunion speeches had been dehverod, adopted a set of radical resolutions. These formally affirmed the right of secession, denounced

"//íaíorjí of the Vnüed SlaUê, I, 174. "Ibid. I, 135. 50 American Antiquarian Society. [Apr., the recent Compromise Acts of Congress, and recom- mended a general Congress or Convention of the slave-holding states "with a view and intention of arresting further aggression, and if possible of restoring the constitutional rights of the South and if not, to provide for their safety and independence. "" But what was more alarming was the very definite movement for immediate secession in the four states of Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, which was with difficulty temporarily checked,^^ but not before the agitation had familiarized the people of the South with this remedy for their griev- ances and strengthened their belief in secession as a constitutional right, thus preparing the way for ita adoption a decade later, when the process of the sectionalization of the country had been completed.

"Cluakey, Political Text Book, (2 Ed.) 506-598. "Arthur C. Cole, The South and the Right of Sece«aioti in the Early Fifties. Mite- issippi Vallfj/ Historical Reneio. I, 376-309; Cole, The Whig Party in the South, ch. VI; Cleo Hearon, Mississippi and Compromise, ch. VIII-XII; U. B. Phillips, Georgia and State Rights, lfil-170. Philip M. Hnmer, The St^asioD Movement in South Caro- lina, 1848-1852. (Univ. of P^nn. Ph. D. ÜK-BÍB. June, 1918.)